It is my hypothesis that the first people to settle Monte Verde came from across the Pacific Ocean and not by either of the two present theories.
Several geological factors are involved in this hypothesis.It is possible that the drop of the sea level could be underestimated.Other factors should be considered such as: the isostatic pressure caused by the ice sheet on Antarctica causing the seafloor in the mid-latitudes to rise, rise of the ocean floor due to less sea water applying pressure on it, and the northern reach of the Antarctic ice sheet may have been further north than previously thought, thus indicating that more water was locked up in the ice.The physics of water density in which cold water is denser and contracts could also help decrease the sea level.With the West Wind Current further north due to the Antarctic ice sheet and the Humboldt Current further south than originally thought, these currents could have played a part in the nautical travel.
The lower sea level would cause seamounts that are now under water to become islands.Small islands that existed before the sea level drop would have become larger after the decrease started. Areas of the south Pacific, the East Pacific Rise and Tahiti (refer to map of Pacific seafloor) most notably, could have parts that exposed land.This would have been during the time frame of the 17,500 years I discussed previously.These islands would have provided the re-supply stops and been periodically inhabited.Patrick Kirch stated, “Islanders were not content to always sit at home and tend crops, or fish the reefs and lagoons of the inshore waters.In exploring and populating the Pacific, they gradually built up another ideology, one of the sea as a highway, with a myriad of routes connecting one’s own island to many others” (Kirch 2000:304).A willingness to travel, to explore, this idea brings us to a psychological motivation.Examining anthropological ideas such as a morphology link to South Pacific and South Asians as well as the belief that South Americans believe their ancestors came from across the Pacific were discussed.
Could they arrive hugging the coast all the way from northern Asia? I have discussed the issue of treacherous conditions when the ice is at the coast of the sea.So the coastal migration theory may not be as safe as previously thought. According to Professor Nicole Waguespack, “As the ice masses melted in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene, the Pleistocene coastline and the sites potentially situated on it were inundated.While that is a valid point, it remains difficult to accept the notion that all of the presumably thousands of early coastal sites were located on the outermost regions of the coast and are now under water.In fact, the key to arguments regarding the habitability of northern coastlines is the presence of bears in Pleistocene deposits.The presence of such large omnivores suggests that humans could also have foraged successfully in such environments” (Waguespack 2007:69).The coastal migration gets around the ice blockage that existed but there is no archaeological evidence of this coastal migration.
Why is the first site of human occupation of the American continents so important? I believe it is more about politics and less about the actual truth. Professor Walker lectured in class about the Clovis police, that is when I got interested in this site. I decided to come from the angle of where could the people of Monte Verde came from. It seemed logical to me that they could have come from across the Pacific. My research has left my desire to know the true answer stronger. I feel that this is a vivable possibility.
The evidence presented in this wiki, though not scientific, shows a possible theory of a migration route from the western South Pacific to South America could have taken place between 30,000 BP and 12,500 BP.Further archaeological research is needed to add validity to this hypothesis.
Several geological factors are involved in this hypothesis. It is possible that the drop of the sea level could be underestimated. Other factors should be considered such as: the isostatic pressure caused by the ice sheet on Antarctica causing the seafloor in the mid-latitudes to rise, rise of the ocean floor due to less sea water applying pressure on it, and the northern reach of the Antarctic ice sheet may have been further north than previously thought, thus indicating that more water was locked up in the ice. The physics of water density in which cold water is denser and contracts could also help decrease the sea level. With the West Wind Current further north due to the Antarctic ice sheet and the Humboldt Current further south than originally thought, these currents could have played a part in the nautical travel.
The lower sea level would cause seamounts that are now under water to become islands. Small islands that existed before the sea level drop would have become larger after the decrease started. Areas of the south Pacific, the East Pacific Rise and Tahiti (refer to map of Pacific seafloor) most notably, could have parts that exposed land. This would have been during the time frame of the 17,500 years I discussed previously. These islands would have provided the re-supply stops and been periodically inhabited. Patrick Kirch stated, “Islanders were not content to always sit at home and tend crops, or fish the reefs and lagoons of the inshore waters. In exploring and populating the Pacific, they gradually built up another ideology, one of the sea as a highway, with a myriad of routes connecting one’s own island to many others” (Kirch 2000:304). A willingness to travel, to explore, this idea brings us to a psychological motivation. Examining anthropological ideas such as a morphology link to South Pacific and South Asians as well as the belief that South Americans believe their ancestors came from across the Pacific were discussed.
Could they arrive hugging the coast all the way from northern Asia? I have discussed the issue of treacherous conditions when the ice is at the coast of the sea. So the coastal migration theory may not be as safe as previously thought. According to Professor Nicole Waguespack, “As the ice masses melted in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene, the Pleistocene coastline and the sites potentially situated on it were inundated. While that is a valid point, it remains difficult to accept the notion that all of the presumably thousands of early coastal sites were located on the outermost regions of the coast and are now under water. In fact, the key to arguments regarding the habitability of northern coastlines is the presence of bears in Pleistocene deposits. The presence of such large omnivores suggests that humans could also have foraged successfully in such environments” (Waguespack 2007:69). The coastal migration gets around the ice blockage that existed but there is no archaeological evidence of this coastal migration.
Why is the first site of human occupation of the American continents so important? I believe it is more about politics and less about the actual truth. Professor Walker lectured in class about the Clovis police, that is when I got interested in this site. I decided to come from the angle of where could the people of Monte Verde came from. It seemed logical to me that they could have come from across the Pacific. My research has left my desire to know the true answer stronger. I feel that this is a vivable possibility.
The evidence presented in this wiki, though not scientific, shows a possible theory of a migration route from the western South Pacific to South America could have taken place between 30,000 BP and 12,500 BP. Further archaeological research is needed to add validity to this hypothesis.